Obama seeks to disarm world's nukes

[chitoryu12]

Link

PRAGUE (April 5) - Declaring the future of mankind at stake, President Barack Obama on Sunday said all nations must strive to rid the world of nuclear arms and that the U.S. had a "moral responsibility" to lead because no other country has used one.
A North Korean rocket launch upstaged Obama's idealistic call to action, delivered in the capital of the Czech Republic, a former satellite of the Soviet Union. But Obama dismissed those who say the spread of nuclear weapons, "the most dangerous legacy of the Cold War," cannot be checked.
This goal will not be reached quickly — perhaps not in my lifetime," he told a cheering crowd of more than 20,000 in the historic square outside the Prague Castle gates. We "must ignore the voices who tell us that the world cannot change. We have to insist, 'Yes, we can.'"
Few experts think it's possible to completely eradicate nuclear weapons, and many say it wouldn't be a good idea even if it could be done. Even backward nations such as North Korea have shown they can develop bombs, given enough time.
But a program to drastically cut the world atomic arsenal carries support from scientists and lions of the foreign policy world. Obama embraced that step as his first goal and chose as the venue for his address a nation that peacefully threw off communism and helped topple the Soviet Union, despite its nuclear power.
Skip over this content But he said his own country, with its huge arsenal and its history using two atomic bombs against Japan in 1945, had to lead the world. He said the U.S. has a "moral responsibility" to start taking steps now.
"To reduce our warheads and stockpiles, we will negotiate a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with the Russians this year," he promised.
The nuclear-free cause is more potent in Europe than in the United States, where even Democratic politicians such as Obama must avoid being labeled as soft or naive if they endorse it. Still, Obama said he would resubmit a proposed Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty to the Senate for ratification. The pact was signed by President Bill Clinton but rejected by the Senate in 1999.
While espousing long-term goals, Obama took care to promise that America would not lower its defenses while others are pursuing a nuclear threat. He warned both North Korea, which has tested a nuclear weapon, and Iran, which the West says is developing one, that the world was against them.
Obama gave his most unequivocal pledge yet to proceed with building a missile defense system in Europe, so long as Iran pursues nuclear weapons, a charge it denies. That shield is to be based in the Czech Republic and Poland. Those countries are on Russia's doorstep, and the missile shield has contributed to a significant decline in U.S.-Russia relations.
In the interest of resetting ties with Moscow, Obama previously had appeared to soft-pedal his support for the Bush-era shield proposal. But he adopted a different tone in Prague.
"As long as the threat from Iran persists, we will go forward with a missile defense system that is cost-effective and proven," Obama said, earning cheers from the crowd.
Skip over this content Download the
AOL News Toolbar
Our new toolbar integrates latest news into your Web browser and installs in seconds. Download It Now Hours before the address, an aide awoke Obama in his hotel room to tell him that North Korea had make good on its pledge to launch a long-range rocket. By lunchtime, the president had addressed it publicly nearly half a dozen times.
"Rules must be binding," he said. "Violations must be punished. Words must mean something."
"Now is the time for a strong international response," he said.
After the speech and a round of private meetings with foreign leaders, Obama arrived in Turkey, the final stop of his trip.
On the broader anti-nuclear issue, more than 140 nations have ratified the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. But 44 states that possess nuclear technology need to both sign and ratify it before it can take effect and only 35 have do so. The United States is among the holdouts, along with China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, North Korea, and Pakistan.
Ratification was one of several "concrete steps" Obama outlined as necessary to move toward a nuclear-free world. He also called for reducing the role of nuclear weapons in American national security strategy and seeking a new treaty to end the production of fissile materials used in nuclear weapons.
Obama said the U.S. will seek to strengthen the nuclear nonproliferation treaty by providing more resources and authority for international inspections and mandating "real and immediate consequences" for countries that violate the treaty.
He offered few details of how he would accomplish his larger goal and acknowledged that "in a strange turn of history, the threat of global nuclear war has gone down, but the risk of a nuclear attack has gone up."

Starting processes to disarm nuclear weapons is good and all, but honestly, what's the workability of that plan? Not every nation (especially North Korea) will be willing to disarm any nukes they've developed and/or will continue to build them in secret. More peaceble countries may also be unwilling to part with their weapons out of fear that they would be unable to retaliate against a nuclear attack from one of the aforementioned countries.

[KrauserKrauser]

Here's Obama's thought process on this:

1) Get rid of all the Nukes
2) ???
3) Profit

Change we can believe in!

He's being extermely idealistic to the point of being naive. He's good at making big speeches, I question his ability to actually get anything resembling this accomplished.

[Posner]

I have to proclaim my ignorance, but how would one go about getting rid of nuclear weapons?

[Beowulf]

I have to proclaim my ignorance, but how would one go about getting rid of nuclear weapons?

Step one: world government
step two: ???
step three: profit!

Step one isn't going to happen anytime soon.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Here's Obama's thought process on this:

1) Get rid of all the Nukes
2) ???
3) Profit

Change we can believe in!

So, instead of any substantive argument you just make some vague claim that Obama is trying to profit off of this in some way?

He's being extermely idealistic to the point of being naive.

You do realize one of the first things this article quotes him as saying is that it probably won't be possible to accomplish this goal in our lifetimes, right? Do you really not understand the concept of long-term planning? Do you honestly prefer that he put absolutely NO effort at all into reducing nuclear proliferation based on the fact that it's going to be hard?

[AMT]

Here's Obama's thought process on this:

1) Get rid of all the Nukes
2) ???
3) Profit

Change we can believe in!

So, instead of any substantive argument you just make some vague claim that Obama is trying to profit off of this in some way?

He's being extermely idealistic to the point of being naive.

You do realize one of the first things this article quotes him as saying is that it probably won't be possible to accomplish this goal in our lifetimes, right? Do you really not understand the concept of long-term planning? Do you honestly prefer that he put absolutely NO effort at all into reducing nuclear proliferation based on the fact that it's going to be hard?

But... it'll take longer then an election cycle! Why would Obama care?

Oh wait, it's because he's trying to actually be a statesman and not a politician. Attempting to make the world a better place.

Damn him!

[KrauserKrauser]

So, instead of any substantive argument you just make some vague claim that Obama is trying to profit off of this in some way?

It's a joke, from South Park, meant to show that the plan of action being taken is not entirely thought out. Obama wants to get rid of the world's nukes, dunno how, and then rainbows and sunshine.

Please ignore that the presence of Nukes has kept conflicts small scale and limits the escalation of forces. Simply saying the world would be better off without Nukes is both true and false and ignores the historical impact the presence of Nukes has had.

Obama is pandering to the hardcore left, I'm sure they love the idea, but they are retarded when it comes to anything involving nukes anyway, so I'll insult them any chance I get.

You do realize one of the first things this article quotes him as saying is that it probably won't be possible to accomplish this goal in our lifetimes, right? Do you really not understand the concept of long-term planning? Do you honestly prefer that he put absolutely NO effort at all into reducing nuclear proliferation based on the fact that it's going to be hard?

There is a difference between long term planning and going "Gee-willigers Capt. Sunshine, the world sure would be better without all these nasty hurtful sadpants Nukes around." Enforcement? Non-proliferation? Who cares! Idealism sounds great in the press!

Exactly how are they going to stop Iran and other countries from getting the Bomb? More enforcement! By who? The UN? He'd have a better chace getting sunshive and rainbows to stop those dastardly individuals than depending on that thoroughly corrupt and impotent body to do something envolving enforcement of anything.

It's not like he is coming up with anything new here, he's just saying we should "step up enforcement". I agree! Who is going to pay for it? Who is going to enforce it? Are we going to use the same people as before? What do we do if they say no? How are we going to enforce non-compliant countries? Invasion? War? With what troops?

There is a difference between saying we are going to take steps to reduce our nuclear stockpile in the hopes that others will follow step and saying we are going to take steps to reduce our nuclear stockpile because if we get rid of all the nukes the world will be happysillyfunzonepantscity!

It's not like I should be surprised, Obama and a good portion of his supporters have always been hopelessly idealistic in their approach to many topics, this time they just decided to spout about nukes.

[Ziggy Stardust]

It's a joke, from South Park,

Ah, I must have missed that episode.

Obama wants to get rid of the world's nukes, dunno how, and then rainbows and sunshine.

Did you even read the article? Because this is an awful strawman you are attacking.

Please ignore that the presence of Nukes has kept conflicts small scale and limits the escalation of forces.

Where's your proof? Do you really think geopolitics are that simplistic?

Simply saying the world would be better off without Nukes is both true and false and ignores the historical impact the presence of Nukes has had.

Both true and false? Um ... okay. And what historical impact are you talking about? The policy of MAD? Because that doesn't help anybody.

Obama is pandering to the hardcore left, I'm sure they love the idea, but they are retarded when it comes to anything involving nukes anyway, so I'll insult them any chance I get.

How is it pandering to the hardcore left? Do you really think that only a few fringe loonies don't like nuclear weapons? Do you really not understand that reducing nuclear proliferation is a goal that the majority of people support?

There is a difference between long term planning and going "Gee-willigers Capt. Sunshine, the world sure would be better without all these nasty hurtful sadpants Nukes around." Enforcement? Non-proliferation? Who cares! Idealism sounds great in the press!

God, this is why I hate conservative fucktards like you. For some bizarre reason, you expect Obama to outline in excruciating detail exactly how and when he is going to do something. Newsflash, dumbass: he was giving a speech, not a briefing to the fucking Joint Chiefs of Staff. But when Bush was president I bet you never attacked him when he said in a speech, "We're going to hunt down Osama bin Laden" without saying how and when.

Exactly how are they going to stop Iran and other countries from getting the Bomb? More enforcement! By who? The UN? He'd have a better chace getting sunshive and rainbows to stop those dastardly individuals than depending on that thoroughly corrupt and impotent body to do something envolving enforcement of anything.

You're logic is, essentially, that because it is going to be difficult to halt proliferation, we shouldn't even try. Oddly, I bet you support the War on Terror. By your logic, though, we shouldn't even try to stop terrorists, because it's hard and the UN doesn't have the power to help us. Doublethink, much?

[General Zod]

Can we just replace Krauser with a bot? I think we'd get about as much substantive criticism with as predictable as the right wing dittoheads are getting. It seems that every time Obama proposes anything even the least bit idealistic without automatically including a 1000 page plan instantly the hilarious accusations of "lol he's naive and doesn't know what he's doing" or "lol he's wanting moar powar" or "lol where's the details" are almost like clockwork.

[Darth Wong]

Krauser is just a right-winger who's butthurt that Grumpy Old Man and Caribou Barbie lost the last federal election, and is bitching constantly at every excuse. Even this statement of long-term goals, which is obviously not intended as a howto manual, is somehow an excuse to rant that Obama is an idiot because his howto manual doesn't have any instructions in it. He reads right-wing websites which say this sort of thing all the time, and he doesn't seem to have a mental filter which tells him that people outside Rush Limbaugh dittoland might actually see through it.

[KrauserKrauser]

Ok, fine, you're right, this is a speech, not policy. I will wait till he actually brings some policy up for debate and then wiegh in then. His words are frequently lofty rhetoric so we will see what he actually tries to get accomplished on paper.

One comment I do question is this:

"As long as the threat from Iran persists, we will go forward with a missile defense system that is cost-effective and proven,"

Wouldn't it be easier to, you know, stop them from getting the bomb in the first place? Till they do, I would think the biggest threat to justify the missle shield would be Russia and POSSIBLY China, but this statement re: the missle shield doesn't make sense as Iran's current strategtic capability is 0 until they go Nuke.

[Darth Wong]

One comment I do question is this:

"As long as the threat from Iran persists, we will go forward with a missile defense system that is cost-effective and proven,"

Wouldn't it be easier to, you know, stop them from getting the bomb in the first place?

Wow. You don't even see the incredible irony in you blasting him for talking about lofty goals without explaining how to get there, and then posting this immediately afterwards.

[The Spartan]

Wouldn't it be easier to, you know, stop them from getting the bomb in the first place?

How, exactly?

Embargo them and wreck our weakened economy as the oil from Iran goes somewhere else? Cut off their local uranium supplies? Stop shipments of the centrifuges that they already have? Invade and have the military cut to pieces? Nuke them into a parking lot?

[Darth Wong]

Wouldn't it be easier to, you know, stop them from getting the bomb in the first place?

How, exactly?

Embargo them and wreck our weakened economy as the oil from Iran goes somewhere else? Cut off their local uranium supplies? Stop shipments of the centrifuges that they already have? Invade and have the military cut to pieces? Nuke them into a parking lot?

Stop asking him how to do it. Isn't it enough to just say it's "easier" without explaining how he knows this to be true?

[KrauserKrauser]

In my mind they are two different animals. One questions his ability to accomplish his extrememly idealistic goal of a nuke free world. The second questions the justification of an expansion of the missle shield due to a nuclear threat from Iran. The actual justification is obviously from the threat of Russian/Chinese missles, not the non-existent Iranian missle force.

[Ziggy Stardust]

In my mind they are two different animals. One questions his ability to accomplish his extrememly idealistic goal of a nuke free world. The second questions the justification of an expansion of the missle shield due to a nuclear threat from Iran. The actual justification is obviously from the threat of Russian/Chinese missles, not the non-existent Iranian missle force.

I think "in my mind" is the most important part of this sentence. Because reality sure disagrees.

[KrauserKrauser]

How, exactly?

Embargo them and wreck our weakened economy as the oil from Iran goes somewhere else? Cut off their local uranium supplies? Stop shipments of the centrifuges that they already have? Invade and have the military cut to pieces? Nuke them into a parking lot?

Well if he is going to get the sort of international cooperation necessary for getting the world nuke stockpile reduced or eliminated, then having the international community support the embargo to remove the market for Iran's oil should be possible. We could try incentive based carrots but AFAIK they do not have a history of working with the current regime in Iran.

If Obama really had this as his goal, to reduce the spread of nukes, then he should be much more active in getting Iran to stop development as they are the newest country trying to get into the club. If his efforts fail to get Iran to stop their progress, his influence will be greatly diminished when the next country trys to join. Obviously trade embargoes don't work, force won't be willingly used, threats of force are ignored and bargaining through proxies doesn't help, so his approach should be to find a way to get Iran to stop, not justify an expansion of the missle shield meant to defend against Russian nukes with the future Iranian nuclear force that he was unable to stop from developing.

If Obama wants to work towards reducing the number of countries with nukes, allowing Iran to go nuclear doesn't work in his favor. If they can openly defy the international community, what is to stop any other country in the future? If the Iranians were allowed to develop nukes why can't the Ukraine or Saudi Arabia? Venezula? Cuba?

My main point was that the comment didn't make any sense. The missle shield is being expanded to defend against non-existent future nuclear missles? Really? Sounds like he wants the missle shield but doesn't Russia to be angry at him for wanting it.

[General Zod]

In my mind they are two different animals. One questions his ability to accomplish his extrememly idealistic goal of a nuke free world. The second questions the justification of an expansion of the missle shield due to a nuclear threat from Iran. The actual justification is obviously from the threat of Russian/Chinese missles, not the non-existent Iranian missle force.

Are you incapable of reading anything except what you want to see?

"To reduce our warheads and stockpiles, we will negotiate a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with the Russians this year," he promised.

How the fuck do you get "eliminate nukes altogether" from "reduce the amount of warheads and stockpiles in existence"? Especially when he admits that being nuke free would be impossible to accomplish in anything but an extremely long term timeframe?

[KrauserKrauser]

How, exactly?

Embargo them and wreck our weakened economy as the oil from Iran goes somewhere else? Cut off their local uranium supplies? Stop shipments of the centrifuges that they already have? Invade and have the military cut to pieces? Nuke them into a parking lot?

Well if he is going to get the sort of international cooperation necessary for getting the world nuke stockpile reduced or eliminated, then having the international community support the embargo to remove the market for Iran's oil should be possible. We could try incentive based carrots but AFAIK they do not have a history of working with the current regime in Iran.

If Obama really had this as his goal, to reduce the spread of nukes, then he should be much more active in getting Iran to stop development as they are the newest country trying to get into the club. If his efforts fail to get Iran to stop their progress, his influence will be greatly diminished when the next country trys to join. Obviously trade embargoes don't work, force won't be willingly used, threats of force are ignored and bargaining through proxies doesn't help, so his approach should be to find a way to get Iran to stop, not justify an expansion of the missle shield meant to defend against Russian nukes with the future Iranian nuclear force that he was unable to stop from developing.

If Obama wants to work towards reducing the number of countries with nukes, allowing Iran to go nuclear doesn't work in his favor. If they can openly defy the international community, what is to stop any other country in the future? If the Iranians were allowed to develop nukes why can't the Ukraine, Georgia or Saudi Arabia? Venezula? Cuba?

My main point was that the comment didn't make any sense. The missle shield is being expanded to defend against non-existent future nuclear missles? Really? Sounds like he wants the missle shield but doesn't Russia to be angry at him for wanting it.

[Darth Wong]

In my mind they are two different animals. One questions his ability to accomplish his extrememly idealistic goal of a nuke free world. The second questions the justification of an expansion of the missle shield due to a nuclear threat from Iran. The actual justification is obviously from the threat of Russian/Chinese missles, not the non-existent Iranian missle force.

Yeah, they're different; your statement is worse. You did not merely state a goal or "question the justification of an expansion of the missile shield due to a nuclear threat from Iran"; you declared that it would be "easier to, you know, stop them from getting the bomb in the first place?"

You said this would be "easier" without the slightest shred of explanation or even any hint as to how it could be done. And don't tell me that you were asking an honest question by saying "wouldn't it be so"; I know a rhetorical question when I see one.

[Solauren]

Sorry Obama, we need nukes.

And not for use on each other.

We need them if we are going to have a chance in hell of stopping a large incoming piece of space debris.

[KrauserKrauser]

Are you incapable of reading anything except what you want to see?

Declaring the future of mankind at stake, President Barack Obama on Sunday said all nations must strive to rid the world of nuclear arms and that the U.S. had a "moral responsibility" to lead because no other country has used one.

It's not a direct quote, granted, but the thrust was a world free of nukes.

How the fuck do you get "eliminate nukes altogether" from "reduce the amount of warheads and stockpiles in existence"? Especially when he admits that being nuke free would be impossible to accomplish in anything but an extremely long term timeframe?

There was no direct quote, but multiple times in the article the implied goal was the elimination of nukes altogether.

I simply don't like the idea of that degree of an idealism in that powerful of an office. I believe that nukes are here to stay and the desire to put Pandora back in the box stated by our highest office makes me skeptical of the quality of future policy that we may see from Obama.

Now, as has been mentioned before, this was just a speech and and I will wait until poilicy is proposed to criticize the specifics.

[KrauserKrauser]

Yeah, they're different; your statement is worse. You did not merely state a goal or "question the justification of an expansion of the missile shield due to a nuclear threat from Iran"; you declared that it would be "easier to, you know, stop them from getting the bomb in the first place?"

You said this would be "easier" without the slightest shred of explanation or even any hint as to how it could be done. And don't tell me that you were asking an honest question by saying "wouldn't it be so"; I know a rhetorical question when I see one.

It would be easier, if your stated goal was to eliminate or reduce the spread of nukes. If he were able to successfully stop Iran from getting the bomb, it would then stand to reason that it would easier to get other countries to stop developing nuke tech in the future? Given that he wants to eliminate nukes in the long term and stop their spread in the short term, how is it going to be any easier for him to stop the spread of nukes if Iran is able to force its way into the club?

Again, if he is unable to stop Iran to get nukes and is covering his ass in case he fails with the missle shield expansion, how is it going to be any easier to stop the next country from developing the bomb if they have the recent Iranian example of success to guide them?

[Darth Wong]

Sorry Obama, we need nukes.

And not for use on each other.

We need them if we are going to have a chance in hell of stopping a large incoming piece of space debris.

You don't seriously think they can just retarget an ICBM to deflect an incoming asteroid, do you? There's no reason why a pre-existing ICBM arsenal would help us deflect an incoming asteroid. An asteroid deflection arsenal would have to be purpose-built and designed.

[Darth Wong]

It would be easier, if your stated goal was to eliminate or reduce the spread of nukes. If he were able to successfully stop Iran from getting the bomb, it would then stand to reason that it would easier to get other countries to stop developing nuke tech in the future?

So it's "easier" if you simply assume that we can just "stop" them through unspecified means? That's great. Once again, your superior reasoning skills leave us all in awe.